Geoff Bennett:
The Supreme Court’s tariff ruling and President Trump’s response topped off a week that saw key developments on the international stage.
For more, we turn now to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart. That’s David Brooks of “The Atlantic” and Jonathan Capehart of MS NOW.
Good evening to you both.
So, David, we will start with you.
(Coughing)
Geoff Bennett:
Jonathan, feel free to take a sip of water if you need it.
(Laughter)
Geoff Bennett:
The key takeaways of this Supreme Court tariff ruling, as you see them.
David Brooks:
Well, it’ll make tariff-issuing harder, certainly will not make them go away. Trump has made that perfectly clear.
But just on the substance of it, it’s become clear that this tariff policy is a gigantic economic failure. It was designed to reduce — to increase manufacturing jobs in the United States. Manufacturing jobs have continued their decline, maybe at an accelerated rate.
At the same time, according to a Fed study this week, 90 percent of the costs are passed on to American consumers. So it’s a tax on Americans. And then it’s — so it’s led to inflation.
But the big picture here is that the Supreme Court has had a pretty consistent line on federal power. They have given Trump a lot of broad latitude to run the executive branch. But they have not given him broad latitude to run the legislative branch.
They have said this is a clear legislative thing. It’s in the Constitution, taxing and spending, tariffs. It’s right there. And they’re trying to draw a line around the presidency. Back in like 1973-’74, a historian named Arthur Schlesinger wrote a book called “The Imperial Presidency” about Richard Nixon.
That wasn’t even close to where we are today. This is the most imperial presidency in American history. And the worst part is, it’s accompanied not only by a president who wants to grab every power, but a Congress whose power is imploding voluntarily.
And so part of the problem here is the unwillingness of Congress to do their job. And that leaves a vacuum that Trump can fill.
Geoff Bennett:
Jonathan, what about that?
President Trump has for years now pushed the boundaries of executive authority in his first term and in the first year of his second term. How significant is it, after years of the Supreme Court really reinforcing his expansive view of executive power, two of the justices he appointed effectively broke with him today?
Jonathan Capehart:
It’s a good sign that the Supreme Court isn’t as in lockstep with the president as a lot of people feared.
The other thing — excuse me — never swallow just before — your own saliva just before you go. My apologies.
(Laughter)
Jonathan Capehart:
But the other thing about the ruling is, to David’s point, the justices basically said in the ruling, you know, Mr. President, there is a way to do what you want to do. And it’s by doing it with the legislative branch.
So as much as it was a smackdown of the president and his overreach, it was a reminder to Congress that basically, yo, you guys have a job to do. The Constitution lays it out. Get to work. Whether this Congress, with this Republican majority and particularly with this Republican speaker, whether they will take the Supreme Court up on its opportunity to do its job remains to be seen.
Geoff Bennett:
Well, after the ruling, the president took to the White House Briefing Room. He spoke for 45 minutes and he escalated his attacks against the court and the justices themselves.
President Donald Trump:
The Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing. And I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country.
They’re very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution.
Geoff Bennett:
Disloyal to our Constitution. Is there a point at which the president’s rhetoric — maybe we’re already there — becomes corrosive to the institution itself?
David Brooks:
Well, Donald Trump has never had an honest disagreement with somebody and where you say, oh, I disagree with you and without him going ad hominem.
And that is just his nature. It is the nature of somebody with a narcissistic personality disorder to think, I am the center, and everything that’s an assault on me cannot be anything but a shameful attack on all that is right and good.
And so it’s very hard. We travel around the country. We meet people trying to heal America, trying to build conversations. And it’s just frustrating that all these people are doing this work around the country at the same time, day by day, there’s a shredding from the top.
And so there’s these forces of humanization that are trying to have a decent country, and then the shredding from the top is just a constant battle of forcing dehumanization.
Geoff Bennett:
As we have been speaking, the president signed the executive order establishing this 10 percent global tariff. It expires in 150 days unless Congress extends it.
Does that though, Jonathan, set up a trap for Republicans in Congress, given how unpopular tariffs are? They’re certainly going to be pressured by President Trump to fall in line.
Jonathan Capehart:
And they’re going to be pressured by Democrats who want to do something about the president’s tariff regime.
So, yes, they’re in a trap, they’re in a quandary, they’re in a bind, just as they are in a trap, in a quandary, in a bind. Let’s not forget, there’s still a partial government shutdown. And we haven’t heard — at least I haven’t heard anything about any kind of negotiations to reopen the Department of Homeland Security.
And on the president’s remarks, going after the Supreme Court, the same Supreme Court that gave him immunity for official acts, and he was all happy about them then. But of all the shameful remarks he gave in that press conference, when he said not only that he thought that those justices should be ashamed, but that their families would be ashamed of them, and that, to me, just — just when I thought he couldn’t get any lower, he gets lower.
And I don’t know why I keep thinking he won’t go any lower, but he does. But that, I thought, was really shameful on the part of the president.
Geoff Bennett:
Let’s shift our focus to the president convening this past week the first meeting of what he’s calling his Board of Peace, dozens of international leaders, you see them there, discussing ongoing conflicts, including Gaza, the rising tensions with Iran.
David, we have spoken on this program about U.S. retrenchment. Is this a reassertion of American leadership, or do you see this as executive overreach in the foreign policy sphere?
David Brooks:
Yes, it’s not ideal what he’s doing.
And I’d say it’s not ideal for a couple of reasons. One, there’s really no recipe for how you’re going to get Hamas to disarm. And unless you do that, there’s going to be no investment. And so unless you have a strategy for that, you really don’t have a plan.
Second, there’s not enough Palestinian input there. This is their place and eventually, we hope, their country. And they should be beginning the redevelopment of their own country with outside assistance.
Nonetheless, I think this is worth a shot. I think America has led international development programs for all through the 20th century. And some of them worked and some of them didn’t. But I don’t see anything else on offer to get Gaza some aid.
The U.N. has totally morally bankrupted itself in that region. They’re not going to do anything. They don’t have the trust of the Israelis, let alone other people. And they shouldn’t have our trust, at least on this issue. I’m not a big U.N. ambassador, but, on the Middle East, they have sacrificed their moral authority.
And so I don’t see anybody else doing it. And so if Trump wants to lead an international coalition to do international development in Gaza, I don’t see anything better on offer.
Jonathan Capehart:
Here’s my question, though.
In event of an opportunity to ask the president questions, this is what I would ask him, Mr. President, two-part question. One, where is the $10 billion you committed yesterday? Where’s that money coming from? And, two, into which bank is it — offshore bank is it going to, a bank that you, as the leader of this board, gets to decide where this money goes and you decide how that money is spent?
Why shouldn’t the American people think that the money that you are using, taxpayers’ money, isn’t going to end up in your own pocket or the pocket of your family and not make it to Gaza? That is the question that I would love to ask.
Geoff Bennett:
In the time that remains, I want to get your reflections on Jesse Jackson, the civil rights icon, two-time presidential candidate who passed this past week at the age of 84.
Jonathan Capehart:
Reverend Jackson, a historic figure.
And I think of it in terms of what Ambassador Young said to me in an interview years ago, that Reverend Dr. King said to them, most of us won’t live until 40, but if we live past 40, we will make it to 100.
And he felt an obligation if he lived past 40. Reverend Jackson ran for president the first time when he was 42 years old. And ever since that first run in ’84 and ’88, he’s been — and you could see it in his works, an obligation to try to make the nation better.
And I think he did.
Geoff Bennett:
David?
David Brooks:
I began my career as a columnist South Side of Chicago, and Jesse Jackson, his Rainbow Coalition was there. Harold Washington was mayor of the time, a great politician, Jackson, a great rhetorician.
And those two were sort of rivals because they were very sort of different kinds of people.
Geoff Bennett:
Yes.
David Brooks:
But think of it. Jackson was instrumental to the civil rights movement, but he also really was a formative influence on the modern American progressive movement.
And so he did two big things in his life. And that’s — aside from his nice personality and his rhetorical style, that’s a life of accomplishment.
Geoff Bennett:
David Brooks, Jonathan Capehart, always great to speak with you. Have a good weekend.
#Brooks #Capehart #tariff #ruling #Trumps #attacks #Supreme #Court #justices
